Appeal 3339416

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/MAL/23/00585 for revised application for the erection of five detached three-bedroomed bungalows with associated access, parking and landscaping, together with ancillary works at [site address] , Latchingdon, Essex, [postcode] granted on 25 August 2023 by Maldon District Council, is varied by deleting conditions 5, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 17.

An application for costs is made by [name], Woodhill Estates Ltd against Maldon District Council. This application is subject to a separate decision.

I have taken the site address above from the appeal form, adding the postcode provided on the Council’s decision notice, as it more clearly identifies the location of the appeal site.

Since the Council determined the planning application, a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect. However, as the Framework’s policy content, in so far as it relates to the main issues has not been significantly altered there is no requirement for me to seek further submissions on this latest version. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by the appeal being determined accordingly.

I have dealt with two other appeals1 that relate to adjacent sites to this appeal site. However, given the issues related to each are different, I have dealt with them individually, rather than combining decisions.

Planning permission2 was granted on appeal in March 2023 at the appeal site for the erection of 5 detached three-bedroom bungalows with associated access, parking and landscaping. 1 APP/X1545/W/24/3341657 and APP/X1545/W/24/3337592 2 APP/X1545/W/22/3293818

The planning application subject to this appeal was submitted by the appellants in June 2023 in order to make minor revisions to the previously approved scheme including slight alterations to the siting of dwellings and the inclusion of garages attached to two of the dwellings where previously only parking spaces were identified.

Three conditions (5, 6 and 7) relating to biodiversity matters were imposed on the planning permission subject to this appeal which were not imposed on the previously approved planning permission. The appellant asserts that it is inconsistent to impose these conditions given the planning history at the appeal site.

Additional information was submitted with the planning application subject to this appeal to resolve matters covered by planning conditions under the previously approved scheme, including but not limited to a schedule of materials and a [name] and [name], which relate to disputed conditions 8, 16 and 17.

The main issues are therefore: • whether conditions 5, 6 and 7 are reasonable and necessary having regard to biodiversity matters; • whether condition 8 is reasonable and necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area; and • whether conditions 16 and 17 are reasonable and necessary in the interests of ensuring appropriate foul and surface water drainage.

The Council has confirmed that conditions 5, 6 and 7 relating to a construction environmental management plan regarding biodiversity, biodiversity enhancement and lighting should not have been imposed, given the similarities between the proposal and the previous scheme granted on appeal and due to the fact that similar conditions were not imposed on that previous permission.

Given the limited time between the appeal decision and the submission of the application subject to this appeal and that no significant changes to the policy context have been made in relation to biodiversity matters, I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s view on this matter.

The Ecological Survey and Assessment dated June 2021 prepared by [planning inspector] BSc, [name], concludes that the proposal will not have a detrimental effect on the local bat population or on protected species.

Based on the evidence before me and the specific details of the planning history at the appeal site, if conditions 5, 6 and 7 were not imposed, I do not find that there would be significant impacts contrary to Policy N2 of the Maldon District Approved Local Development Plan 2014-2029 July 2017 (LDP). This policy seeks, amongst other things, that mitigation measures are required if any protected species and/or priority habitats/species or significant local wildlife are found on site. Therefore, I find that conditions 5, 6 and 7 are not necessary or reasonable.

It has been confirmed by the Council that a schedule of materials, titled ‘[address] – Rear Development – [name] – Plots 1-5’ was submitted with the planning application. These details were assessed by the Council as being acceptable. I have reviewed the submitted material schedule and can find no reason to disagree with the Council’s view on this matter.

The Council suggest that condition 8 could be amended to require the development to be undertaken in accordance with the external materials detailed in the schedule of materials. However, condition 2 already requires that the development is carried out in accordance with a list of approved plans and documents, including the schedule of materials.

I therefore find that condition 8 is not necessary or reasonable and without it, the development would remain in compliance with Policy D1 of the LDP, which seeks that developments respect and enhance the character and local context of an area.

With regard to conditions 16 and 17, it is confirmed by the Council that a [name] and [name] was submitted with the planning application which provided sufficient detail in relation to the disposal of sewage and surface water drainage, which was acceptable. Condition 2 requires that the development is carried out in accordance with a list of approved plans and documents, including the [name] and [name].

I therefore find that conditions 16 and 17 are not necessary or reasonable and by not imposing them it would not lead to an increased risk of flooding or pollution.

An interested party has raised concerns about the disruption caused as a result of the building works, the position of a garage to the rear of their property, the smell of sewage, the flooding of roads and the increase in traffic around the bend at high speed and the likely increase in traffic as a result of additional houses. The Parish Council also objects to the revised scheme due to it being outside the settlement boundary.

However, given this appeal relates to a scheme that was granted by the Council subject to conditions, the principle of development and the proposed siting of built form was accepted by the Council in this case. As stated above, the appellant has submitted a [name] and [name] which the Council considers acceptable, and I can find no substantive evidence to the contrary on this matter. The Highways Authority did not object to the scheme, subject to the imposition of conditions. The conditions that are disputed do not relate to highways matters and the Council has not raised any issues in this regard. I note that building works can be disruptive, but this is only a temporary effect and is not sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed conditions.